Monday, January 7, 2013

New Research Elucidates Directed Mutation Mechanisms

No More RM+NS

It has been known for years that organisms and populations adapt to environmental challenges by mutating DNA nucleotides that are particularly exposed during transcription. In other words, when faced with an environmental challenge a cell identifies certain genes which can help meet the challenge. But the gene might require some modification. And so when the DNA double helix is unwound (in order to make a copy of the gene) the exposed single stranded DNA is subject to mutation. Therefore mutations don’t occur randomly in the genome, but rather in the genes where they can help to address the challenge. But there is more. The gene’s single stranded DNA has certain coils and loops which expose only some of the gene’s nucleotides to mutation. So not only are certain genes targeted for mutation, but certain nucleotides within those genes are targeted in what is referred to as directed mutations. As one paper explained:

The resulting mutants provide appropriate variants for selection by the stress involved, thus accelerating evolution with minimal random damage to the genome.

Note the word appropriate, for it is key. It means that the genetic variants that are created are not random with respect to the threat. Instead, they have a far greater probability of enhancing the organism’s ability to deal with the environmental challenge.

Now follow-on research indicates that these mutagenic mechanisms are essentially the same in all living cells. Therefore these mutagenic mechanisms, which target mutations in response to environmental challenges, must have arisen very early in evolutionary history. As the paper explains:

Unique metabolic reactions to a particular environmental stress apparently target specific genes for increased rates of transcription and mutation, resulting in higher mutation rates for those genes most likely to solve the problem.

These findings contradict evolution’s prediction that mutations are random with respect to need and sometimes just happen to occur in the right place at the right time. Instead, evolution created mechanisms which directly respond to future threats. These mechanisms would, themselves, bring about evolution. In other words, evolution creates evolution. That’s incredible.

I wonder why they never tell us how likely it is that these mechanisms should have arisen by pure chance in the posited time-frame? Oh yeah--they have no clue. And yet undirected UCA is KNOWN to be plausible.

The bus of evolution ran out of gas years ago. Fortunately for them they were on the downhill side of things so they were able to make it appear as though they were still making progress. The last few years have made it very clear the bottom of the hill is in sight.

No doubt when the bus comes to a stop, the most dedicated of the evolutionists will run by the windows with changing scenery in an attempt to convince people the bus is still rolling.

For years, even despite criticism from IDers themselves, I've been saying that NS doesn't even exist. It's this type model of "directed mutations" that I had in mind, probably influenced (per Joe G's reminder) by my reading of Dr. Spetner's book (which is excellent.)

While there will always remain an element of NS---which is it's principal role in organisms, that of elimination = death---the principal driver of 'adaptation' is, to quote above, [u]nique metabolic reactions to a particular environmental stress apparently target[ing] specific genes for increased rates of transcription and mutation, . . .

When biology finally is able to see how organisms adapt, I suspect that NS will become almost a forgotten element in the process.

This is exactly what Dawkins will tell you: NS is the Grim Reaper. It's "selective death."

In the end, the principal role of what Darwin calls NS is simply the elimination of the unfit, the defective.

Why call that "selection". Let's call it NE: Natural Elimination.

IOW, if you ask the question: where did life come from in all its beauty and splendor, to answer this question by saying it is brought about by "death" (NE = NS) is just a ridiculous assertion.

But, of course, scientists of all stripes are making ridiculous statements. For example, we now have physicists who tell us that "something can come from nothing." It's as if Charles Darwin is reincarnated and has now become a physicist; i.e., the same demented logic.

The bus of evolution ran out of gas years ago. Fortunately for them they were on the downhill side of things so they were able to make it appear as though they were still making progress. The last few years have made it very clear the bottom of the hill is in sight.

"The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism"

Just curious. What did you think this would accomplish? To me all it shows is that intelligent people have known evolution to be palpable nonsense from the very beginning and very little has changed. Now the so-called science at the basis of evolutionary thought is being shown for the sham it always has been.

JS: Taxpayers--some of whom are as clueless as Moronton's priests, some of whom couldn't care less either way, and some of whom see the idiocy of it all but obey the law regardless. The middle group is enough to tip the scales in favor of political support until civilization collapses. Remember, politicians are, well, politicians.

JS: Taxpayers--some of whom are as clueless as Moronton's priests, some of whom couldn't care less either way, and some of whom see the idiocy of it all but obey the law regardless. The middle group is enough to tip the scales in favor of political support until civilization collapses. Remember, politicians are, well, politicians.

So true,biology is a waste of money. It is amazing that a scientific theory can cause the collapse of civilization,wait a minute maybe this is all the designer's design,and we are preprogrammed to survive the change of enviroment.

What JG asked was what supports the belief that UCA is true. The answer is, of course, extreme credulity. But it gets lots of its momentum from non-stop groundless pontifications backed by tax-funded institutions. My point was that Moronton is right--that credulity will not be displaced from its current favored position within those institutions because of political reasons.

But please, V, if you're aware of something about evolution (i.e., variance) that has been explained and corroborated that IMPLIES a contradiction to SA, please inform us once and for all. If there is no such thing, then it just is a fact that over 150 years of pontificating about UCA has bought us nothing practical that wouldn't have been discovered just by researching how cells work and making reasonable extrapolations therefrom.

But please, V, if you're aware of something about evolution (i.e., variance) that has been explained and corroborated that IMPLIES a contradiction to SA, please inform us once and for all

It's not up to science to disprove your stupid claims LFJJ. If you have some scientific positive evidence for separately created kinds, present it. I've only been asking you for a month now and you've soiled your pants and run away every time.

What were the first separately created 'kinds' LFJJ? When were they created, and how?

But please, V, if you're aware of something about evolution (i.e., variance) that has been explained and corroborated that IMPLIES a contradiction to SA, please inform us once and for all

Do you have a concise reference to what the theory of SA entails? So far it seems to have not precise structure. It would be hard to know whether it does or not. But from my elementary knowledge of biology or astronomy or physics or geology, all can be the result of the design mechanism. Necessity and chance being sufficent does not exclude design. Gravity could require the will of the designer to operate, random mutations could be a design which mimics the random. The Grand Canyon carved in a single day by an advanced designer.Your heart attack not the result of lifestyle but a direct intervention from an unseen designer.

An unknown creator with unknown capabilities for unknown reasons is capable of anything logically possible,unless you know philosophically otherwise. So nothing can eliminate that possibility, science can explain to degree observed phenomenon with other observed phenomenon and logically connections , which luckily has resulted in a practical explanations for humanity's well being, air conditioning for one.

JS: Taxpayers--some of whom are as clueless as Moronton's priests, some of whom couldn't care less either way, and some of whom see the idiocy of it all but obey the law regardless. The middle group is enough to tip the scales in favor of political support until civilization collapses

Do you have any reason why the ToE will cause civilization to collapse?

Slightly of topic, at some point previously you stated the 1 ) man's inductive nature 2) observation of the world. Results in proof of a competent benevolent ,maybe ,designer. Now I may have muddled that a bit but would you mind going into your reasoning? Thanks

UCA has bought us nothing practical that wouldn't have been discovered just by researching how cells work and making reasonable extrapolations therefrom.

Any evidence for this? SA was the accepted theory,still is among the majority of Americans probably, until Darwin. It would seem from a superficial view progress in understanding the functions of the biosphere has mostly occurred after the introduction of natural caused diversity. After all most medical experimentation is based on commonality of organisms. True, common design could be theorized but as we discussed there is no law of common design.

A Darwinist has claimed: "Then why can't you produce a single piece of physical empirical evidence for your 'separately created kinds' fantasy?"

It's called the Fossil Record. It's called the Cambrian Explosion.

For the record PaV, are you claiming the original separately created 'kinds' are the animals found in the Cambrian age fossil beds? Animals that lived over 500 MYA and which then evolved into all the other life forms we know of, both extant species and extinct ones?

Before we go any further you need to commit if that is really your position.

V: Do you have a concise reference to what the theory of SA entails? So far it seems to have not precise structure.

J: It doesn't have precise structure. Because people can vary as to their inferences to which lineages are distinct. I suspect that most SA'ists have a few criteria in mind, such as minimizing speculation, allowing for more or less extrapolation based on one's classificational criteria, etc.

V: But from my elementary knowledge of biology or astronomy or physics or geology, all can be the result of the design mechanism.

J: There's two senses in which one can use design. One can say there are purely natural (i.e., deterministic) event sequences beyond some originally-designed configuration of initial conditions. Or one can mean libertarian causality is involved beyond the initial conditions of the history of the universe. We don't the first case is logically possible yet.

V: Your heart attack not the result of lifestyle but a direct intervention from an unseen designer.

J: A designer of the kind theism posits must not only NOT render induction worthless, but must EXPLAIN the fit of the inductive human mind TO an extra-ego reality of non-self beings that behave according to the regularities we are compelled to infer exist. Otherwise, theism is as arbitrary as you're describing. That's not to say the regularities we infer have to be exactly correct. But they have to be correct to the extent that we can function teleogically by applying them. More than that, our inductive approach must be truth-approximating when applied over the long-term, or science has nothing to do with truth whatsoever.

V: An unknown creator with unknown capabilities for unknown reasons is capable of anything logically possible,unless you know philosophically otherwise. So nothing can eliminate that possibility,

J: Indeed. But we can't predict phenotypes to hardly any degree at all. Thus, UCA is just speculation thus far. Maybe a naturalistic theory will explain it one day. We have no such theory now.

V: Do you have any reason why the ToE will cause civilization to collapse?

J: I didn't say that. Civilizations collapse. The details in the causality can vary, I'm sure.

V: Slightly of topic, at some point previously you stated the 1 ) man's inductive nature 2) observation of the world. Results in proof of a competent benevolent ,maybe ,designer. Now I may have muddled that a bit but would you mind going into your reasoning?

J: You may have muddled an important part of it--the apart about the "observation of the world." Once we posit the occurrence of false memories, illusions, phantom pain, etc, it is clear that our belief that there is an external world of 3-dimensionally-extended beings (yes, I know some scientists doubt even that) is an inference, not magical intuitive knowledge.

But when you analyze why we believe what we infer (when our inferences are rational, i.e.), it's ultimately because it's believed to be more satisfying in the long-term to believe thus. There is no way to prove one's axioms. Thus, we must begin, once we gain the capacity to do true volitional adjudication, with something more sentient than epistemic, like, "I'm designed to seek satisfaction." And we proceed by holding on to those rational modes of discursive conclusion-derivation and intuitive beliefs that seem necessary to our long-term satisfaction. I.e., we're even parsimonious with these. Because parsimony is SATISFYING.

Thus, long-term (not short-term) satisfaction and belief are married together for rational persons (try being a radical skeptic for a day--it's too wearisome to do). It would seem that the following are pretty obvious:

1) an explanation is better (i.e., more satisfying) than no explanation

2) an explanation with greater explanatory breadth is greater than one with less explanatory breadth

3) when two explanations have equal explanatory breadth, the more parsimonious one is better

4) (this one is the one relevant to SA and UCA) when two natural explanations explain the exact same data, but little of the total data they wish to explain, the explanation that has to posit the least ad-hoc hypotheses is better.

With respect to 1), the hypothesis, "I'm designed to seek satisfaction," is explained by a sympathetic designer with the revelant capacities and past volitional/intentional posture. There is no other conceivable explanation I can think of.

With respect to 4), we can't currently predict phenotypes, using event regularities applied to initial conditions, beyond that which is consistent with staunch SA (i.e., lots of separate ancestors). Thus, SA is better NOW simply because it is currently less speculative. The minute this ceases to be the case, it will be because there will be predictions that corroborate UCA over SA. Speculation is just another way of saying "ad-hoc hypotheses." Clearly, 2) & 3) don't even apply to most folks' conceptions of SA and UCA.

The Cambrian Explosion is a complete refutation to Darwin's theory; and he knew that.

We now know that the reasons he gave for this "explosion" are absent. Hence, by Darwin's very words, his theory is wrong.

Now, it's you Darwinists that have to come up with an explanation. The Cambrian Explosion fits in quite nicely with the view of Intelligence Design. So, the ball is on your side of the net. No use trying to equivocate and obfuscate. Unless you can explain the Cambrian Explosion in Darwinian terms, then you have no scientific theory. Plain and simple.

You see Ian, Joe only requires evidence from those he disagrees with , his position requires none since it would by definition take a moron to disagree ,in fact Joe views it as an insult to even question his " theory" . Is that about right, Joe?

You aren't the least bit curious about the nature of this designer? It doesn't matter to you in the slightest? If that's the case then you really don't understand science.

Why does it matter? We don't know how the designers of Stonehenge designed and built Stonehenge, but we know it was designed.

Yes, even though we don't know the names of all those designers and engineers and laborers who built it, even though we don't know the names of their parents or children or what they liked in the way of food, we are pretty sure it was designed because but we do have good archeological evidence that there were human societies around at that time who had knowledge of using materials like wood and leather and stone. In other words, we have good evidence for the existence of the most likely designers.

And based on the knowledge we have of these people and their technology, archeologists have spent a great deal of time working out how they might have built Stonehenge, where they might have obtained the raw materials, how they might have transported them to the site, how they might have dressed the stones and erected them.

Yet, Intelligent Design theorists are apparently completely indifferent to the nature of this designer or designers of theirs who created life we see around us or maybe even created the entire universe.

Who or what designed the designer?

Why does it matter?

Why do you think? Try approaching it like a scientist for once. What can you infer about your designer and how might it be of use?

LoL! Your position doesn't have anything to do with science.

I'm asking the sort of questions you should be asking but don't. Which is the more scientific approach?

Otherwise, all you have are faith-based claims and the kind of evidence that would be dismissed as hearsay in a court of law.

But THAT is ALL YOU HAVE.

The evidence for science in general and evolution in particular has stood up in a court of law on several occasions, which is more than can be said for intelligent design/creationism.

Ian:You aren't the least bit curious about the nature of this designer?

Yes I am. How do YOU say we go about determining that given all we have is the design to go by?

If that's the case then you really don't understand science.

LoL! How can science tell us about the designer Ian given we only have the design to study?

What has science told us about the designer(s) of Stonehenge? Nothing of any importance, that's for sure.

Yes, even though we don't know the names of all those designers and engineers and laborers who built it, even though we don't know the names of their parents or children or what they liked in the way of food, we are pretty sure it was designed because but we do have good archeological evidence that there were human societies around at that time who had knowledge of using materials like wood and leather and stone. In other words, we have good evidence for the existence of the most likely designers.

LoL! Yeah because of what they left behind, ie STONEHENGE and other artifacts. But tat does NOT mean humans built it. They could have just found it.

Yet, Intelligent Design theorists are apparently completely indifferent to the nature of this designer or designers of theirs who created life we see around us or maybe even created the entire universe.

LoL! Intelligent design is about the DESIGN, NOT the designer(s).

The evidence for science in general and evolution in particular has stood up in a court of law on several occasions, which is more than can be said for intelligent design/creationism.

LIAR. You can't even produce a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution you lying coward.

vel, proud to be ignorant:You see Ian, Joe only requires evidence from those he disagrees with , his position requires none since it would by definition take a moron to disagree ,in fact Joe views it as an insult to even question his " theory" . Is that about right, Joe?

Nope, not even close. There is plenty of positive evidence for Intelligent Design. And myself and others have presented it. That all you can do is choke on it does not make that evidence go away.

But thanks for continuing to prove that you are nothing but an ignorant coward.

In biology- Living organisms. In living organisms all of their systems and subsystems.

For example the ribosome is a genetic compiler and artificial ribosomes do not function (because they aren't programmed). And that means they ain't reducible to their parts. And your position requires that they are so reducible.

In physics, the laws of nature.

That said, what is the best piece of evidence for the blind watchmaker?

V: Let's try an experiment and see if I was right, Joe what is the best piece of positive evidence for ID? The appearance of design?

J: What do you think the "appearance of design" amounts to? I think it's precisely the kind of analogies, etc discussed in a book about teleology and nature.

Go here -- http://www.amazon.com/Teleology-Norms-Nature-Studies-Philosophy/dp/0815336020/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357400881&sr=8-1&keywords=teleological+arrow –- and then select the “search inside book” option on the left. Then read the “first pages.” The kinds of analogies this guy brings out seem to be what we mean by the APPEARANCE of design in organisms. And it explains why Hume's approach is so over-simplistic, on the other hand.

Thorton: "What were the first separately created 'kinds' LFJJ? When were they created, and how?"

What was the universal common ancestor, Thorton? How did it come into existence and when? How did it become the ancestor to all extant life?

No one knows for certain, but according to the evidence we do have the UCA was most likely an assemblage of organic molecules capable of self-replication with variation. It came into existence over 3.5 BYA, possibly as long as 3.9 BYA. There are several competing hypothesis about where the event first took place, each with some supporting evidence. They include undersea thermal vents that would have provided energy for the reactions or shallow depressions on the surface of clay deposits that would have acted as a primitive protective membrane.

Once the first imperfect self replicators emerged and began competing for resources the processes of evolution kicked, and have run uninterrupted for well over 3 billion years.

There is quite a bit of information on the current state of abiogenesis research for those who aren't too lazy to look for it.Wiki has a good overview with lots of links to the primary literature

I see now, Moronton. The details on your side are details about speculations. And this is what UCA'ists call evidence? That their speculations are so voluminous that there's lots of details to them? GOT IT!

I see now, Moronton. The details on your side are details about speculations

No you don't see because you're a lazy liar.

Too lazy to read the summary provided.

Too lazy to follow the links to the research published in the primary scientific literature.

Too lazy to understand the evidence that has been discovered.

Face it LFJJ - you don't understand the science involved because you don't want to understand the science involved. You and Fatboy feel much safer living in your made-up fantasy world of Noah's Ark and the separately created 'kinds'.

None of you clowns has presented a single detail or piece of evidence for your SA fantasy BTW. You can't.

"No one knows for certain, but according to the evidence we do have the UCA was most likely an assemblage of organic molecules capable of self-replication with variation. It came into existence over 3.5 BYA, possibly as long as 3.9 BYA. There are several competing hypothesis about where the event first took place, each with some supporting evidence. They include undersea thermal vents that would have provided energy for the reactions or shallow depressions on the surface of clay deposits that would have acted as a primitive protective membrane.

Once the first imperfect self replicators emerged and began competing for resources the processes of evolution kicked, and have run uninterrupted for well over 3 billion years.

There is quite a bit of information on the current state of abiogenesis research for those who aren't too lazy to look for it.Wiki has a good overview with lots of links to the primary literature

Now, how about some details from your side?"

Are you really serious? You think this is providing details? This is considerably less than story telling. Can you demonstrate any of this? Not at all, it's nothing but fables.

Until you can explain how life could originate on its own and show details of how this self initiated life acquired the ability to self replicate, let alone self replicate with variation, you can't even go to the next step of speculating how this entity could become the common ancestor for all life throughout history.

Evolutionary science is like a traveler who believes he is nearing his destination, when in fact, he is still at home in bed, asleep, without his luggage packed or travel plans in place. All his progress exists no where outside of his own imaginings.

May have, could have, possibly, perhaps, it is believed, most likely, etc., etc. This is not scientific language. This is the language of imagination, speculation and story telling. Evolution is rife with it and that is all you've presented above.

Try again if you wish, but I doubt you will be able to come up with anything better.

Nic said, "Evolutionary science is like a traveler who believes he is nearing his destination, when in fact, he is still at home in bed, asleep, without his luggage packed or travel plans in place. All his progress exists no where outside of his own imaginings"

No Nic, I provided an exceptionally short summary of a very complicated topic. I also provided a link to a more detailed summary which in turn provided lots of links to the much more detailed scientific research.

As usual you were too lazy to read or follow to get the details you claim don't exist.

I can't do anything about your desire to stay willfully ignorant Nic. Maybe you should see a councilor.

Now where are your details, ANY details of your claimed separately created kinds? Even a link to a summary would be nice, but apparently you don't even have that.

So the strong evidence for the existance of UCA still didn´t show if the chirality problem was solved before of after UCA.Does racemic macromolecules self replicate?Or this is not conclusive determined yet too?

"Is there some reason you're incapable of doing your own literature searches?"

I've read lots of material on abiogenesis, none of it even remotely scientific, so let's not waste our time on that rabbit path.

I can easily believe you're read lots of non-scientific horsecrap from Answers In Genesis and other Creationist garbage sites.

Name any of the technical papers, articles, or books from the primary scientific literature you've read on the topic. Hand waving apologetics isn't very impressive.

Well tell me then, how would you explain the vast diversity of life we see extant today.

Evolution through common descent as evidenced by the huge amount of consilient data from dozens of scientific fields. The same as 99.9% of the rest of the scientific community. You know, people who actually study and work with the subject for a living.

The diversity of life speaks very clearly to separate kinds. You're so committed to common ancestry, you refuse to see what's right in front of your nose. Sort of a forest and trees thing.

Sorry Nic but your ignorance based personal incredulity will get you exactly nowhere in the scientific world.

That's good Chubs, go ahead and vent that anger and frustration that being such an obese ignorant loser must make you feel. All that hostility and resentment, all that jealousy you have towards real scientists and people who actually understand the technical details of the topics you try and BS your way through - go ahead Chubs, let it ooze out like the pus from your canker-covered lips.

Chubs has apparently decided he wants to force CH to shut down the blog again. Thus the huge flood of pointless obscenities.

It happens everywhere Chubs shows up on the web. He posts the same Creationist nonsense, gets called on it, responds the only way he knows how with his filthy mouth and threats of physical violence. There's a good reason he's been banned from so many science discussion boards.

BTW vel, we are STILL waiting for the best piece of evidence for unguided evolution.

The best piece is the fact that in 150+ years of looking no one has come up with a single piece of evidence to indicate evolution IS guided by some external purposeful intelligence.

You can't prove a negative Chubs. All you can do is amass evidence that shows the claimed condition ('guided' evolution) is both unlikely and unnecessary, which is exactly what science has done.

Science doesn't need to disprove your 'guided' evolution stupidity any more than it needs to disprove 'guided' gravity - the idea that gravity is actually caused by invisible pixies who fly around pushing down on things.

It's pretty simple Chubs: if you want to make a case for 'guided' evolution then provide the positive evidence for 'guided' evolution. Describe and demonstrate a mechanism for how the 'Designer' physically manipulated materials. Provide a timeline for when this supposed 'guided design' was done. Describe and demonstrate who or what did the 'guiding'.

He deserves to be responded to in a respectful manner, just like anyone else. Thorton is a person not an 'it', treat him appropriately. That's not to say he does not cross the line as well. But to fuel the fire only leads to the generation of heat and no light.

"If you can't see that thorton is nothing but an abusive punk then I feel bad for you."

Thorton is an individual who holds a different viewpoint on origins, and defends it vigorously. If you wish to change his viewpoint you won't do so by using the vulgar abusive language you do.

You can't even provide a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution. No one can.

Here's one. Take one E coli and clone it 12 times. Start 12 identical colonies. Keep track of them over 30K generations.

Hypothesis: if evolution is unguided, we should see evolution change the colonies in 12 unique ways. If evolution is guided, we should see the same changes in all 12 colonies.

Guess what Fatboy - Lenski already did the experiment. 12 identical colonies of E coli from the same clone, identical selection pressures, end result after 30K generations was 12 noticeably different colonies. One even had a remarkable, completely new function, the ability to utilize citrates for energy.

Unguided hypothesis supported, guided process not supported.

Why did your "guided" evolution produce 12 different results Chubs? Why didn't all 12 get the same result? Unless you want to claim the goal of the "guidance" was merely to survive no matter what the answer was, in which case you just described mainstream views on evolution.

Thorton, "If evolution is guided, we should see the same changes in all 12 colonies."

Why?

According to Chubs the guidance is pre-programmed in like software. When you give 12 identical programs the same inputs you should get the same outputs.

Pre-programming also implies a pre-specified goal was incorporated that the program is striving to reach. All 12 colonies had identical citrates available, yet only one developed the ability to digest it.

Unless, as I said before, the goal was just "survive by any means". In which case you have the Intelligent Guider mimicking the functions of unguided evolution exactly.

This may sound dumb, but it's a serious question none the less. Do you follow sports at all?

Somewhat. Played lacrosse and baseball in college, football bores me. Please don't embarrass yourself by comparing Chubs' claim of 'guided evolution' with the outcome of a sports contest being different every time. What's the purpose of a supposedly "Intelligent Guider" of evolution doing any guiding if has no control over the result?

"Please don't embarrass yourself by comparing Chubs' claim of 'guided evolution' with the outcome of a sports contest being different every time."

Nope, I won't do that.

If you do understand sports, then you understand the nature of sports as well. That being there are rules which govern the playing of sports. Think of those rules as the 'program' which runs the mechanism. Now think of the teams and the execution of play as the design of the sport.

In the case of hockey, which is similar to laCrosse, you have 6 members on each side whose goal it is to score on the other team while at the same time preventing the other team from scoring.

Nothing in a hockey game is random in that the rules dictate what can and cannot be done in order to run the program. However, within those rules goals can be scored in many different ways without violating the design.

Players react to various situations and adjust they actions accordingly. These adjustments can vary greatly, but they must all fall within the rules of the program.

Thus the mechanism of the program allows various ways to score and prevent scoring, while not violating the design.

And that means there was more than one solution and as always more than one way to reach each solution.

I see that you are too ignorant to understand that.

Please show your evidence the protocols were not followed and that each colony had different selection pressures.

LoL! That isn't what I said, you moron.

Each colony had the same selection pressures- multiple different pressures, which means there was more than one was to solve teh survival problem.

you couldn't explain why only unguided evolution would do what you said.

So according to you your Magic Evolution Guider purposely made it look like unguided evolution.

Except it does NOT look like unguided evolution. No one knows what unguided evolution would look like.

According to Chubs the guidance is pre-programmed in like software. When you give 12 identical programs the same inputs you should get the same outputs.

Nope. Hump that strawman you coward.

Did dawkins weasel produce the same paths to teh solution? No. And his had only ONE target.

Pre-programming also implies a pre-specified goal was incorporated that the program is striving to reach.

Maybe in your little bitty mind. However in real-life that isn't so.

Again there was MORE THAN ONE SOLUTION BECAUSE THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE PRESSURE.

And the way to get to the citrate doesn't appear to be unguided in any way- two requisite potentiating mutations that did not cause any advantage, folloowed by a tandem duplication that put the existing citrate transport gene under the control of a different promoter, ie a promoter that was not turned off in the presence of oxygen.

vel the spewer:I would feel bad for Joe if I didn't believe that he enjoys the attention, of any variety.

I don't enjoy attention, vel. The only reason I post is to correct evoTARD lies, false accusations and hubris. It is a full-time job given the likes of you and thorton.

Heck I ain't even going to enjoy the court case that is going to happen when I insist that the local schools carry a "theory" of evolution disclaimer.

It should be interesting though as the disclaimer is going to say that darwin set up and argured against a strawman and that neither Intelligent Design nor YEC's baraminology are anti-evolution as they both accept allele frequencies changing, descent with modification and speciation.

In the case of hockey, which is similar to laCrosse, you have 6 members on each side whose goal it is to score on the other team while at the same time preventing the other team from scoring.

Nothing in a hockey game is random in that the rules dictate what can and cannot be done in order to run the program.

I know, I played that too. :)

What does any of that have to do with Lenski's E coli experiment?

What were the outside 'rules' the E coli colonies were following? How did you determine them? Were there referees who gave them penalties if the rules were violated ?

A hockey goal has a very specific definition - entire puck must cross the goal line, can't be directed in with hand or skate, etc. What was the pre-specified 'goal' of the E coli, and how did you determine it?

I appreciate that you're making an attempt but that was a really lame analogy.

However, within those rules goals can be scored in many different ways without violating the design

And that means there was more than one solution and as always more than one way to reach each solution.

You're a liar making up things out of whole cloth again Chubs. List the multiple selection pressures, according to you there must be at least 12 since each colony evolved to be measureably different. List the 'solutions' each of the 12 colonies came up with.

T: "Pre-programming also implies a pre-specified goal was incorporated that the program is striving to reach."

Maybe in your little bitty mind. However in real-life that isn't so

Damn you're an idiot. If there was no pre-specified goal, no pre-specified path and the 'solution' was just to survive selection pressure by any means then you are still describing regular unguided evolution.

That's just as stupid as claiming the invisible Gravity Pixies direct gravity, only do it in way that makes gravity look completely natural.

It also means there's still ZERO evidence for any outside direction in evolution.

Again there was MORE THAN ONE SOLUTION BECAUSE THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE PRESSURE.

And the way to get to the citrate doesn't appear to be unguided in any way- two requisite potentiating mutations that did not cause any advantage, folloowed by a tandem duplication that put the existing citrate transport gene under the control of a different promoter, ie a promoter that was not turned off in the presence of oxygen.

I did read the paper(s) plural Fatboy. There's nothing in there about 12 different selection pressures driving the colonies to 12 different solutions.

LoL! Again Dawkins' weasel refutes your ignorance.

Every time you run Weasel you pre-specify its goal you idiot. What was the pre-specified goal of the E coli?

There is still zero evidence that evolution is unguided.

If evolution is "guided", why do new mutations that happen in every generation follow a skewed bell-shaped distribution with deleterious, neutral, and beneficial ones? Why does natural selection then act to reduce the deleterious ones and favor the beneficial ones?

How was it determined tat any genetic change is a random/ chance event?

It's been empirically observed in hundreds of experiments that genetic changes have a random effect on reproductive fitness. Since there is ZERO evidence of an outside agency consciously directing the mutations to produce these random results, the conclusion is that they are indeed undirected and random WRT fitness.

How many hundreds of times does that need to be explained to you Chubs? Would it help if we spelled it out in vanilla frosting on top of a double dutch chocolate cake?

"What were the outside 'rules' the E coli colonies were following? How did you determine them? Were there referees who gave them penalties if the rules were violated?"

The rules were that 'like produces like'. Lenski's work continually produced only more bacteria, so obviously some rules were in effect. As for penalties for violating the rules,... death.

"What was the pre-specified 'goal' of the E coli,..."

The specified goal was continued existence through reproduction.

Nic: "However, within those rules goals can be scored in many different ways without violating the design"

Thorton: "Ask Brett Hull and the Buffalo Sabres about that one. ;)"

If Hull had followed the puck into the crease it would have been fine, but as he was in the crease before the puck, it should have been disallowed.

No analogy is perfect, but this one does a good job of pointing out how a specified problem solving design can function by implementing a variety of solutions while remaining within the guidelines of that design.

All hockey players have a few odorous goals on their resume. I had one go in off my head once. There you go, now you have an explanation for my stupidity. ;)

Define 'like'. How much variation can be tolerated between generations and still be considered 'like', especially for multi-cellular animals?

I can follow the rule "any one step can't be more than 3' from your present location" and still walk 3000 miles with enough steps.

The specified goal was continued existence through reproduction.

The same result as unguided evolution. Got it.

No analogy is perfect, but this one does a good job of pointing out how a specified problem solving design can function by implementing a variety of solutions while remaining within the guidelines of that design.

Your analogy makes that point, but the point still has nothing to do with biological evolution in general and the Lenski experiment in specific. If your guidelines are the incredibly broad "stay alive long enough to reproduce" then again your "guided design" is indistinguishable from unguided evolution.

thorton:How much variation can be tolerated between generations and still be considered 'like', especially for multi-cellular animals?

Quite a bit. Just look at dogs. But they are all still dogs.

The same result as unguided evolution.

No, unguided evolution just breaks and/ or deteriorates.

But anyway the claim is that organisms were designed to evolve and eveolved by design- WITHOUT ANY OUTSIDE GUIDANCE.

Their goal was to adapt to their environment- again by design. And Lenski showed that is what they do.

two requisite potentiating mutations that did not cause any advantage, folloowed by a tandem duplication that put the existing citrate transport gene under the control of a different promoter, ie a promoter that was not turned off in the presence of oxygen.

Your position:

It just happened man, you idiots!

Our position:An internal algorithm figured out a way to utilize its current components in such a way so that more nutrition could get into the cell.

An internal algorithm figured out a way to utilize its current components in such a way so that more nutrition could get into the cell.

That is the design,how is it implemented,ToE says random mutations etc, where is algorithm stored, how is it stored,how does it " know" it is time to activate,does it create mutations etc. Until you come up with those you are just speculating, with less evidence than the ToE?

"How much variation can be tolerated between generations and still be considered 'like', especially for multi-cellular animals?"

That, I admit, is hard to do. However, that difficulty does not mean there are no limits when it comes to variation. Ligers, Mules, etc., would testify to that.

"I can follow the rule "any one step can't be more than 3' from your present location" and still walk 3000 miles with enough steps."

You cannot however, limit your steps to 3' from your starting point and still walk 3,000 miles.

"The same result as unguided evolution. Got it."

That could be evolutions goal if it existed, that's true.

"Your analogy makes that point, but the point still has nothing to do with biological evolution in general and the Lenski experiment in specific. If your guidelines are the incredibly broad "stay alive long enough to reproduce" then again your "guided design" is indistinguishable from unguided evolution."

You seem to miss the point. Even if the two processes were indistinguishable, upon which I disagree, it would not mean evolution was true.

vel:That is the design,how is it implemented,ToE says random mutations etc, where is algorithm stored, how is it stored,how does it " know" it is time to activate,does it create mutations etc. Until you come up with those you are just speculating, with less evidence than the ToE?

"It just happened" ain't science, vel. And as I told you above wholy artificial ribosomes DO NOT FUNCTION, which tells us there is more at play than just its physical components.

That, I admit, is hard to do. However, that difficulty does not mean there are no limits when it comes to variation.

Then what are the limits, and what causes them? We keep asking you guys but all we've ever gotten is "dogs are still dogs", or something equally stupid. How long have "dogs been dogs"? 1 million years? 10 million years? 50 million years? How much can a dog change until it's a non-dog?

Going back in time in the fossil record we have creatures that start off looking like modern dogs, then gradually look less and less like modern dogs the farther back in time you go. Eventually you get to a time with lots of animals but nothing that looks like a dog at all. What is the IDC explanation for them?

You cannot however, limit your steps to 3' from your starting point and still walk 3,000 miles.

What barrier limits me to 3' from my starting point? What barrier makes it impossible for small morphological micro-changes to add up to larger morphological macro-change? "We've never seen it in real time" doesn't cut it. You need to show some actual physical mechanism that prevents small changes from accumulating over deep time.

You seem to miss the point. Even if the two processes were indistinguishable, upon which I disagree, it would not mean evolution was true.

Then we hit Occam's razor. Science has shown natural processes on their own are capable of creating the observed effects. You add an additional external factor, this "Intelligent Designer" no one's got the slightest bit of evidence for, and claim this imaginary Entity caused the same effects. It's the Invisible Gravity Pixies all over again.

"How long have "dogs been dogs"? 1 million years? 10 million years? 50 million years?"

For as long as we know. It's simply presumptive conjecture that they came from a non-canine ancestor.

"How much can a dog change until it's a non-dog?"

That's for you to answer. You assume that change happened in the past and led to dogs and will happen in the future and lead to some yet unknown creature. It is precisely this for which you have nothing but conjecture based on assumption of the truth of evolution.

"Going back in time in the fossil record we have creatures that start off looking like modern dogs, then gradually look less and less like modern dogs the farther back in time you go. Eventually you get to a time with lots of animals but nothing that looks like a dog at all. What is the IDC explanation for them?"

Why can they not simply be other creatures which no longer exist? What is the evidence they MUST be ancestors to dogs?

I know they are not examples of evolution. I don't accept evolution, remember? Please stay with the program. Ligers and Mules do demonstrate there are lines which, it appears, cannot be crossed when it comes to genetic recombination.

"We've never seen it in real time" doesn't cut it. You need to show some actual physical mechanism that prevents small changes from accumulating over deep time."

Nope, I don't. The available evidence indicates this is the case and there is nothing available to us at this time to indicate otherwise. You're the one making claims based on groundless conjecture. I at least have observable events in present time to support my view. You have nothing but story telling to support yours.

"Then we hit Occam's razor. Science has shown natural processes on their own are capable of creating the observed effects."

You use the term 'natural' as if it, in and of itself, refutes the existence of God. Do you suppose nature needs an origin?

Thorton: "How long have "dogs been dogs"? 1 million years? 10 million years? 50 million years?"

For as long as we know.

How long is that Nic? Give me a number.

"How much can a dog change until it's a non-dog?"

That's for you to answer.

No, it's for you. You're the one claiming there's this magic barrier that can never be crossed. Tell me what the limits are.

Why can they not simply be other creatures which no longer exist? What is the evidence they MUST be ancestors to dogs?

Because we've got all this fossil evidence that shows the gradual change and the common ancestry, between canidae and ursidae for instance. We've got all this genetic evidence that shows the identical common ancestor relationship between extant species. THAT'S why Nic.

You guys can yell "different interpretation" all you want but the evidence is still going to be there bearing testimony to your LA LA LA approach.

Ligers and Mules do demonstrate there are lines which, it appears, cannot be crossed when it comes to genetic recombination.

You stay with the program. We are talking about changes within a single lineage over time, not how two separate lineages have evolved far enough apart to be no longer interfertile.

Nope, I don't. The available evidence indicates this is the case and there is nothing available to us at this time to indicate otherwise.

Not to be too harsh Nic but you have no friggin' idea about the huge breath and depth of the data that is out there. You're arguing from pure ignorance with someone who knows better. You're the guy at the airport with planes flying everywhere arguing with the pilots that heavier than air flight is impossible.

"Not to be too harsh Nic but you have no friggin' idea about the huge breath and depth of the data that is out there. You're arguing from pure ignorance with someone who knows better. You're the guy at the airport with planes flying everywhere arguing with the pilots that heavier than air flight is impossible."

Volume of data does not equal accurate data. If you start with an assumption of the truth of a subject, (ie, evolution from a common ancestor) and interpret all data under that assumption you will certainly wind up with tons of data supporting it. The only problem being, if your initial assumption is ill founded, all that accumulated data is worthless.

What of fully qualified scientists who interpret that same data without the assumption of the the truth of evolution and arrive at different conclusions? Evidence is neutral, my friend, and always subject to interpretation.

As for heavier than air flight, that can be demonstrated, observed and repeated in real time. What about evolution?

I find your post interesting, but the amount of different questions that is you arising makes difficult an answer to the whole. To start on some points: 1) I agree with you that data alone are not worth without an underling explanatory framework (a theory in scientific language), but I don't agree in your absolute relativism that on the base of the data it is not possible at all to build a judgment among different theories. There are good and bad explanations.2) This is maybe a little provocative. Why you don't apply your relativism also to the Bible? The conclusion can sound like:< If you start with an assumption of the truth of a subject, (i.e. that the Bible is the inerrant word of God) and interpret all data under that assumption you will certainly wind up with tons of data supporting it. >3) Do you frankly think that your level of knowledge in the field is enough to examine the proposed pieces of evidence (e.g. fossil records, comparative anatomy, molecular biology). Rejecting what is claimed by 99% of the people that are working in the field can be also defined pride.

Nice sentence, but this is not helping my discussion with Nic.The argument is that both recognise presence of data, but according to Nic this same set can support different points of view (interpretations)as well. By the way when you say "we" what you are meaning? Are you speaking for you or also for which other (also for Nic?)?

Volume of data does not equal accurate data. If you start with an assumption of the truth of a subject, (ie, evolution from a common ancestor) and interpret all data under that assumption you will certainly wind up with tons of data supporting it. The only problem being, if your initial assumption is ill founded, all that accumulated data is worthless.

But that's not what actually happened Nic. Scientists in the 1800's started with the idea that Biblical Creation was the truth. However, as more and more data was collected it became apparent to the chagrin and consternation of many that the evidence did not support the Biblical story of a young Earth and special Creation. New hypotheses were formed and tested that would explain the data, and from that ToE was born. As it works out, every piece of data gathered since OOS was published supports the theory, and nothing has been found to contradict it. Mistakes in small details have been discovered and corrected over the years, sure, but nothing at all has been found to contradict the major ideas.

What of fully qualified scientists who interpret that same data without the assumption of the the truth of evolution and arrive at different conclusions? Evidence is neutral, my friend, and always subject to interpretation.

I don't know of any fully qualified scientists who reject ToE based solely on the data and not due to their religious leanings. Do you?

For one thing, not all interpretations are equally supported. There's only one explanation right now that explains ALL the evidence in a consilient, logically consistent manner and it isn't special Creation.

As for heavier than air flight, that can be demonstrated, observed and repeated in real time. What about evolution?

The processes of evolution can be demonstrated, observed, and repeated in real time too. Specific results won't always be repeated due to the random component of genetic variation, but trends can be repeated.

Are you still interested in a discussion of the part natural selection plays in evolutionary processes?

Another view of directed mutations involves quantum mechanics. In a series of papers over the past decades, a strong argument has been made for quantum effects of entanglement between DNA and the cellular environment which tries to explain directed or adaptive mutations. You will find a lot more on this topic here.Adaptive Mutations and Quantum Mechanics